User talk:Mario Goetze

March 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Durdhara has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Durdhara was changed by Mario Goetze (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.884265 on 2017-03-06T13:53:17+00:00.


 * Please see WP:SYN and WP:SOCK. utcursch &#124; talk 04:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Over-fictional
These edits are ridiculous. If people off-site are stupid and need hand-holding, that's not Wikipedia's job. We present content in a way that makes sense and that is written in a professional tone. Nowhere at SpongeBob SquarePants do we beat readers over the head with the revelation that the boy sponge is a fictional character, and that creators are taking artistic liberties with depictions of sea life. If children can figure this out, then adults should be able to figure out that Chandra Nandini is make-believe. The changes you have restored are truly an embarrassment to the encyclopedia. Lastly, the phrasing "The creators of the show have taken artistic liberties and the depiction of the life of Chandragupta Maurya is mostly fictional without any historical basis" is unsourced and since you're presenting your perspective as a fact, it now needs to be sourced as factual. See WP:OR. Whatever your issues are with off-site content, you should take the matter up with those sites, not conform Wikipedia to some bastardised version of Snopes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Biased content and WP:MINOR
Hi there, re: this edit, 1) this is not a minor edit, and should not be marked as such. Minor edits are cosmetic changes like typo fixes, punctuation fixes, adding/subtracting wikilinks, etc. Nothing that could potentially be controversial, which your edit was, should be marked minor. Please see WP:MINOR. 2) You removed criticism from the article on the basis that it is a "Biased addition. Not needed". There is no prohibition on the inclusion of biased content in articles. If we were to remove everything that is biased from Wikipedia, every critic's review and every expert's opinion would have to be removed. That would make zero sense. Please re-read WP:NPOV. Our goal is to present a neutral encyclopedia, not to isolate readers from every form of bias. For instance, if critics generally dislike a film, it's not our duty to whitewash the coverage so that the critical response seems even on both sides. We can absolutely present aspects of like and dislike, provided they are proportionately balanced. So in this case, if you want to find opinions that praised the poster to balance out the dislike of the poster, you are welcome to do so, but cutting the criticism entirely doesn't seem constructive. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Baahubali 2: The Conclusion have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Diff: Since I've previously had to admonish you about biased editing, I'm absolutely baffled why you would remove a properly sourced review and instead replace it with two unsourced reviews. Your edit is disruptive. Don't do this again, please. Content needs to be presented from a neutral point of view, and deleting bad reviews doesn't do much to present an honest balance, does it? And just to be clear, if you stuff positive reviews before that 2 star review and push the 2 star review to the bottom of the paragraph, I'll have little choice but to consider that a deliberate POV edit.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)